Lawyer Pardeep Rapria, co-petitioner in the Supreme Court, said:
“The
state exchequer is held by the state as a trustee of the citizens. The
remuneration to state counsels from state exchequer amounts to state
largesse that can’t be offered to anyone according to the sweet will of
the political masters or officers.”
hindustantimes
Hitender Rao and Surender Sharma, Hindustan Times, ChandigarhUpdated: Sep 25, 2015 13:20 IST
Sources in the legal fraternity say that 100 to 120 law officers each would be enough to represent Punjab and Haryana before the 55-odd benches of the high court, but both states have nearly 150 each. (HT Photo)
The scathing remarks from the Supreme Court recently on the opaque
manner in which law officers in Punjab and Haryana are appointed has
raised hopes of a clean-up after years.
Pick-and-choose has been the mechanism in the two advocate general
offices, regardless of which party is in power. The apex court’s
observation makes it clear that political and personal considerations
weigh over merit in selecting law officers, an army of which has been
hired at taxpayers’ money.
On September 10, while reserving the order on a bunch of petitions
related to these selections, an apex court bench of justice TS Thakur
and justice Kurian Joseph said that it would frame broad guidelines for
these appointments. The Supreme Court observed that it would not fix a
cap on the number of law officers, but objectivity and fairness in the
process of appointment were a must. Also, while the state governments
can devise own mechanism, the guidelines could prescribe a process of
consulting with the high court before appointing law officers.
How the matter came before Supreme court
In 2011, deputy advocate general BS Chahal moved the Punjab and
Haryana high court against the regular appointment of a woman, Sonu
Chahal, as senior deputy advocate general in the Punjab advocate
general’s office, challenging it on the grounds of arbitrariness and
lack of transparency. On the recommendation of the Punjab advocate
general’s office, the Punjab government had absorbed Sonu Chahal, for
she was believed to be close to the state’s ruling dispensation.
“No advertisement was issued and no criteria were laid down. She was
issued a direct appointment letter, so I challenged it in the high
court, seeking directions for the framing of guidelines,” BS Chahal told
HT. Following the challenge, his contract was not renewed in 2012; but
in 2013, a high court order restored to him his position with
consequential benefits. The Punjab government went to the Supreme Court,
where during the hearing, high court lawyer Pardeep Rapria filed a
similar petition challenging the appointment of law officers in Haryana
by the present government.
Appointments under scanner
A large number of lawyers in the offices of the Punjab and
Haryana advocate generals owe their appointment to close links with the
ruling establishment. Over the years, the appointed lawyers know that
with the change of the guard, they would also have to pack their bags
and leave. With no laid-down procedure of appointment, it’s the
relatives of politicians, bureaucrats and judges who make it generally
to the long list of law officers.
No norms for selection
In an affidavit before the Supreme Court, the Haryana government said
that it was the discretion of the advocate general to arrange for
representation of the state matters before courts. “On the
recommendation of the Haryana advocate general, the government engaged
legal practitioners and gave them designations,” Haryana submitted in
the apex court, citing a law department manual governing these
appointments.
The Punjab and Haryana governments both conceded before the Supreme
Court that neither selection/search committees were constituted for
these selections nor the courts were consulted. “The advocate general
makes the recommendation based on his assessment of the suitability of
the candidate or the advice of his peers. There is no procedure for
forming selection or search committee,” Punjab stated in its response.
Why criteria are required
The army of law officers in both states is expanding each year.
Sources in the legal fraternity say that as opposed to 100 to 120 law
officers that would be enough to represent states before the 55-odd
benches of the Punjab and Haryana high court, Punjab and Haryana have
nearly 150 each.
Even the Supreme Court pointed out that many law officers had no work
but been receiving handsome pay from the taxpayers’ money. Lawyer
Pardeep Rapria, co-petitioner in the Supreme Court, said: “The state
exchequer is held by the state as a trustee of the citizens. The
remuneration to state counsels from state exchequer amounts to state
largesse that can’t be offered to anyone according to the sweet will of
the political masters or officers.”
With similar views coming from different quarters, including a few
former advocate generals, all eyes are on the much-awaited judgment of
the apex court.
In the AG Har. appointment matter, all eyes are on the reserved judgment in Supreme Court. It’s for the first time after independence that I have challenged the open secret of arbitrary and opaque selection process of lawyers; in effective manner. Even after huge legal research I couldn’t find direct judgment of courts. I wonder why did even the far genius brains than me kept mum on this spoilt system??? Even now, the Punjab Government matter was a friendly match between the parties; between the beneficiaries of the spoilt system.
ReplyDeleteThough, in my heart of hearts, I don’t expect revolutionary transformation in the spoilt system; in conformity with the Constitution Philosophy. But being dangerous optimistic, I do expect the minimum checks and balances to ensure fairness in the selection process, for protecting the interests of ‘we the people of India’. At present, the open loot of tax payers’ money is rampant.